On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:19:19PM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > >> > > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS, privilege > >> > > separation, etc.) > >> > > >> > xinetd begone. There is no justification for using anything resembling > >> > inetd on a modern system. > >> > > >> Why? What if I prefer to have something from inetd only when necessary > >> instead of constantly running daemons everywhere? > > > > Why on earth would you? It's just more administrative overhead, and > > yet another package you didn't need. > > Because I've something else to do with my RAM than to run yet another > daemon that will be used at most every other month. Disk space, not RAM. You lose *real* RAM by running inetd, and this is premature optimisation anyway. Have you actually measured how much physical memory the stuff you run consumes running as both inetd and proper daemons, and determined that the difference would result in a noticable improvement? Hint: it's a very small and sometimes slightly negative amount. My bet is that you just read in a book somewhere that inetd uses less memory, and forgot to check the date on the book. inetd is a throwback to the 1980s. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature